State v. . Haywood
Supreme Court of North Carolina
CRIMINAL action, for betting at a public gaming table, tried at the Spring Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of WaKE county, before his Honor Judge Watts.
Read the full summary
CRIMINAL action, for betting at a public gaming table, tried at the Spring Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of WaKE county, before his Honor Judge Watts. The defendant,“upon hearing the indictment read, moved to quash the same, because it was not fonnd and presented by a grand jury, duly and regularly selected, summoned, drawn and sworn according to law; whereupon the following facts alleged by the defendant, as the ground for quashing the said indictment, are admitted by the Solicitor. 1. The jury list, from which the jurors for the term at which said bill was found, were selected, did not…
1Opinion of the CourtBynum, J.
The regular way of raising the question here made, would have been, not by a motion to quash, but by plea on the arraignment for trial. Such is the course indicated as ■the most proper in the State v. McEntire, 2 Car. L. Rep., 28; and afterwards approved in the State v. Seaborn, 4 Dev., 305. But as the facts are stated and agreed upon, the question will be considered as if raised by plea and demurrer thereto.
The facts are, that the jury list, from which the grand jury finding the indictment was drawn, contained the names of 451 qualified jurors, but did not contain the names of 241 others,…
2Cited by22 opinions
- State v. YoesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- State v. . HensleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
- State v. . DanielsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- State v. . HaywoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
- State v. . GrifficeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.